PDA

View Full Version : Elii's rank vs the other QB's



Pages : [1] 2

Roosevelt
06-29-2013, 12:46 PM
The players ranked Eli 43rd, Rodgers 6th, Brady 4th, and Peyton is either 1 or 2.

That's quite a drop for our guy. I guess you can call me a homer because I thought Eli was closer too them than that.

byron
06-29-2013, 12:56 PM
Eli is the Rodney Dangerfield of the nfl.....jk

43rd of top 100 players?

Flip Empty
06-29-2013, 01:04 PM
Here we go again..


43rd of top 100 players?
I assume so. Voted 43 by players and 41 by fans. He sucked last season so it isn't surprising.

The full list: http://top100.nfl.com/tracker

Hmm, I wonder if nfl.com will remove Aaron Hernandez (77) from that list? Should just CTRL+F/Delete the entire site.

byron
06-29-2013, 01:11 PM
Here we go again..


I assume so. Voted 43 by players and 41 by fans. He sucked last season so it isn't surprising.

The full list: http://top100.nfl.com/tracker yeah I knew the list was coming out "yesterday maybe " idk.......I did just look he fell like 12 spots from last years list ....

BigBlueAllDay
06-29-2013, 01:16 PM
Based on regular season performance or playoff performance? Eli in the playoffs is as good as or better than any of the other "elite" QBs.

kNicksGiants
06-29-2013, 01:16 PM
the way they do the list leaves a lot of room for varying rankings that aren't really accurate to what the players really think.

it would be better if they actually had the players list a full 100 players (or close to it) rather than what they do which is like 20 i think.

Rudyy
06-29-2013, 03:07 PM
This is based off LAST YEARS performance ONLY, and heading into the 2013 season. This is not "Top 100 players so far in their careers."

MattMeyerBud
06-29-2013, 03:12 PM
The players ranked Eli 43rd, Rodgers 6th, Brady 4th, and Peyton is either 1 or 2.

That's quite a drop for our guy. I guess you can call me a homer because I thought Eli was closer too them than that.

I don't think it's that bad considering he didnt have that great of a year

jomo
06-29-2013, 03:19 PM
Yet another one.

Buddy333
06-29-2013, 03:37 PM
Well Rodgers should have been #1 so that list is meaningless.

speedman
06-29-2013, 03:53 PM
Hey mods can't you close these guys down?

Delicreep
06-29-2013, 04:00 PM
I'm just saying...a friend of mine bought Oakley sunglasses and the next day BAM...turned gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

gmen46
06-29-2013, 04:06 PM
I'm just saying...a friend of mine bought Oakley sunglasses and the next day BAM...turned gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

:p :o :rolleyes:

jomo
06-29-2013, 04:06 PM
Hey mods can't you close these guys down?Clock is ticking on this one .............. and 5, 4, 3, 2,...........

Rudyy
06-29-2013, 04:11 PM
:p :o :rolleyes:Got something to say? Lol

AllHailEli
06-29-2013, 04:37 PM
That was the most rational response to an Eli ranking thread I've read -- TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE TOPIC! LOL! In fact, he used it to spam and hawk his wares. Classic!

barran21
06-29-2013, 05:12 PM
I don't know if they change the voting process, but the first time they did this players were only asked to vote on the top 20 players in the NFL, NFLN fill the rest of the list..

gmen46
06-29-2013, 05:18 PM
Got something to say? Lol

What? Oh, ha ha. I just thought his comment was funny. Don't read too much into emoticons

Roosevelt
06-29-2013, 09:39 PM
Imagine a world where an Eli thread could go an entire day without folks going at it.

EliDaMANning
06-29-2013, 10:40 PM
Bogus list. They can kiss Eli's 3rd SB ring before 2014 top 100 voting.

DarkSaint
06-29-2013, 11:13 PM
I'm just saying...a friend of mine bought Oakley sunglasses and the next day BAM...turned gay.Not that there's anything wrong with that.hey! I resent that remark. I've owned Oakley Juliet for years and I'm still straight.

Btw who really cares about where he ranks with the fans.. With all the hate Eli gets from us giants fans its a surprise he made it that far up the list.

Drez
06-29-2013, 11:20 PM
The players ranked Eli 43rd, Rodgers 6th, Brady 4th, and Peyton is either 1 or 2.

That's quite a drop for our guy. I guess you can call me a homer because I thought Eli was closer too them than that.They way they vote is completely screwed, though. Essentially guys find a piece of paper in their lockers that says, "Name your top-20 players that are not teammates." Responding isn't mandatory, either. Nor do respondents have the benefit of having team rosters in front of them. The list is probably more reflective of whose getting positive media attention at the time the responses were given than who the players actually believe are better.

Drez
06-29-2013, 11:22 PM
This is based off LAST YEARS performance ONLY, and heading into the 2013 season. This is not "Top 100 players so far in their careers."There is actually no criteria set for the list. They literally just ask the players to name their top-20.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 12:27 AM
There is actually no criteria set for the list. They literally just ask the players to name their top-20.

I thought they specifically asked players to vote on opponents they play opposite of. That led me to believe it had some validity.

jomo
06-30-2013, 12:29 AM
There is actually no criteria set for the list. They literally just ask the players to name their top-20.Does the fact that >30% of them have been charged with a felony at some time in their lives have any bearing on this survey?

giantsfan420
06-30-2013, 12:52 AM
They way they vote is completely screwed, though. Essentially guys find a piece of paper in their lockers that says, "Name your top-20 players that are not teammates." Responding isn't mandatory, either. Nor do respondents have the benefit of having team rosters in front of them. The list is probably more reflective of whose getting positive media attention at the time the responses were given than who the players actually believe are better.is it even 20 players?

i thought the players were asked to list 5. and then the placement on that list (with some part of the equation involving 20, I think 20%)...and this isnt getting stale to anyone? the hidden enuendo about how eli doesnt measure up disguised under a backhanded compliment to trojan horse it, so that later after the obligatory comment about how posters just cant get through an eli topic when that was the intent from the beginning...i dunno thats just old for me. only commenting on the voting process (and how inherently screwed up it is).

And I forgot who made the post about the list being worthless bc Rodgers wasnt first...while I agree the list is pretty much worthless (i hold that to be true for diff reasons i wont get into), AP got #1 and he was about as fitting a #1 could be so dont get that really. Now, Peyton @ 2? I dunno if I agree with that. but, then again, if the voting process is "list 5 players", I can see how Peyton would edge Rodgers n even Brady. It seems like people are often split between Brady and Rodgers. Maybe that mentality carried over to the players, and when a guy doesnt have peyton as the best qb, its down to brady and rodgers and thus their vote #s would be split allowing peyton to sneak ahead...i dunno i just cant say Peyton had a better yr than Rodgers...

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 01:46 AM
Bogus list. They can kiss Eli's 3rd SB ring before 2014 top 100 voting.

Yes I know, and just imagine after he wins his 4th!

Drez
06-30-2013, 01:50 AM
I thought they specifically asked players to vote on opponents they play opposite of. That led me to believe it had some validity.I read an article shortly before they started naming the players this year that runs down the process. I'll try and track it down. I want to say that only like 20% of players responded, too.

But, yeah, they just say name your top-20 players without even giving them a roster. It's really a bogus process. It's good tv, and drives blog ratings on the various NFL related websites, but that's all it really is.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 02:13 AM
is it even 20 players?

i thought the players were asked to list 5. and then the placement on that list (with some part of the equation involving 20, I think 20%)...and this isnt getting stale to anyone? the hidden enuendo about how eli doesnt measure up disguised under a backhanded compliment to trojan horse it, so that later after the obligatory comment about how posters just cant get through an eli topic when that was the intent from the beginning...i dunno thats just old for me. only commenting on the voting process (and how inherently screwed up it is).

And I forgot who made the post about the list being worthless bc Rodgers wasnt first...while I agree the list is pretty much worthless (i hold that to be true for diff reasons i wont get into), AP got #1 and he was about as fitting a #1 could be so dont get that really. Now, Peyton @ 2? I dunno if I agree with that. but, then again, if the voting process is "list 5 players", I can see how Peyton would edge Rodgers n even Brady. It seems like people are often split between Brady and Rodgers. Maybe that mentality carried over to the players, and when a guy doesnt have peyton as the best qb, its down to brady and rodgers and thus their vote #s would be split allowing peyton to sneak ahead...i dunno i just cant say Peyton had a better yr than Rodgers...

Try to keep an open mind 420 if that's even possible for you.

There is no hidden innuendo. I didn't say Eli didn't measure up, I said the exact opposite. But according to this list, the players feel differently then I do.

My point was simply that perhaps even someone like myself, who never shy's away from critical conversation of Eli (or any other Giant) may see Eli's game through rose colored glasses simply because of the Super Bowl victories. There's nothing more then that to ponder.

Party on.

Drez
06-30-2013, 02:16 AM
Try to keep an open mind 420 if that's even possible for you.

There is no hidden innuendo. I didn't say Eli didn't measure up, I said the exact opposite. But according to this list, the players feel differently then I do.

My point was simply that perhaps even someone like myself, who never shy's away from critical conversation of Eli (or any other Giant) may see Eli's game through rose colored glasses simply because of the Super Bowl victories. There's nothing more then that to ponder.

Party on.In my process to try to track down the article I was talking about, I came across about one where Romo was asked about it. He said that he really couldn't tell you who was having a good year in the AFC and if he voted he'd just have to go on who's being talked/written about. I'd imagine most players would be the same. This idea that they really have any more knowledge than us (who probably actually watch more football than they do) is the point. They don't even have the benefit of having the rosters in front of them while doing it.

FBomb
06-30-2013, 08:00 AM
http://therumpus.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/18VERY_BIG_YAWN_72.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=J1ZQBv_9NmS_yM&tbnid=k8b4Uxp-itr6MM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftherumpus.net%2F2013%2F06%2Fdrawi ng-daily-sunday-edition-a-very-big-yawn%2F&ei=rA_QUcnXOtX-4AOHkYDgAQ&bvm=bv.48572450,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNFQYx1vDo_R7P1ArYszdzrmWXgIBA&ust=1372676340333572)

TCHOF
06-30-2013, 09:13 AM
Hard to imagine the need for this thread . . . .

Harooni
06-30-2013, 09:18 AM
43 sounds about right so many dynamic players in the league right now. Eli gets the job done though

EliDaMANning
06-30-2013, 11:39 AM
How does the 100th ranked guy get voted as a top 20 in anybody's list?

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 12:08 PM
In my process to try to track down the article I was talking about, I came across about one where Romo was asked about it. He said that he really couldn't tell you who was having a good year in the AFC and if he voted he'd just have to go on who's being talked/written about. I'd imagine most players would be the same. This idea that they really have any more knowledge than us (who probably actually watch more football than they do) is the point. They don't even have the benefit of having the rosters in front of them while doing it.

It would only make sense for guys to vote for players they've played against.

Drez
06-30-2013, 12:08 PM
How does the 100th ranked guy get voted as a top 20 in anybody's list?Because each spot 1-20 is given a point value, say 20 points for 1st, 19 for 2nd, etc. Those with the most points are added to the list.

Drez
06-30-2013, 12:10 PM
It would only make sense for guys to vote for players they've played against.Then you'd have an even more skewed and unrealistic view of who the top-100 are. They are simply asked to name their top-20 players. The only criteria is that they cannot list a current teammate.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 12:19 PM
Hard to imagine the need for this thread . . . .

Or even worse your post.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 12:23 PM
Then you'd have an even more skewed and unrealistic view of who the top-100 are. They are simply asked to name their top-20 players. The only criteria is that they cannot list a current teammate.

I'll have to see where I read something about players voting on players they go up against. Not that it matters much.

GameTime
06-30-2013, 12:55 PM
43??? Thats terrible. Last year he was 41!! He is regressing!!!!!....

Start Nassib NOW!!!!!!

Drez
06-30-2013, 01:02 PM
43??? Thats terrible. Last year he was 41!! He is regressing!!!!!....

Start Nassib NOW!!!!!!He was in the 30's last year.

TCHOF
06-30-2013, 01:31 PM
Or even worse your post.

It might surprise you to know that some of us are tired of these stupid Eli threads, in which the same posters (you included) continue to debate the same issues over and over and over and over . . . until the thread invariably gets locked.

Enough already.

GameTime
06-30-2013, 01:32 PM
He was in the 30's last year.
so he has regressed even more than I thoguht!!!!

Nassib!!!

FBomb
06-30-2013, 02:02 PM
It might surprise you to know that some of us are tired of these stupid Eli threads, in which the same posters (you included) continue to debate the same issues over and over and over and over . . . until the thread invariably gets locked.

Enough already.

Could not agree more!! And before someone comes back with "You don't have to read it"...It's the off season and there isn't anything to really talk about until training camp.....So, you have your "Eli" posts to fill the void and I have my "complaining about your Eli posts" posts to fill the void.

EliDaMANning
06-30-2013, 02:41 PM
Because each spot 1-20 is given a point value, say 20 points for 1st, 19 for 2nd, etc. Those with the most points are added to the list.i know, but a guy who's ranked lets say 100, shouldn't be on anyone's top 20.

Drez
06-30-2013, 02:49 PM
i know, but a guy who's ranked lets say 100, shouldn't be on anyone's top 20.He's not ranked 100, per se. He's ranked in the top 20 of a significant number of respondents' ballots.

Buddy333
06-30-2013, 02:53 PM
So where should he be ranked from last season among QB's? Based on last year he may not have been a top 10 QB last year.

Rudyy
06-30-2013, 03:19 PM
There is actually no criteria set for the list. They literally just ask the players to name their top-20.The criteria is the performance.

Drez
06-30-2013, 03:26 PM
The criteria is the performance.Right, but there's no strict definition. Could it be performance over their career? Just last season? This upcoming season? Some combination thereof?

Rudyy
06-30-2013, 03:29 PM
Right, but there's no strict definition. Could it be performance over their career? Just last season? This upcoming season? Some combination thereof?It's last season, hence the Too 100 Players of 2013. It's not their careers.

GameTime
06-30-2013, 03:40 PM
So where should he be ranked from last season among QB's? Based on last year he may not have been a top 10 QB last year.
#1 Giants QB last year and the 7 years prior and for the forseeablr future. Thats all that matters. All the QBs can do whatever they want. They play the Giants defense anyway....not Eli....:cool:

Drez
06-30-2013, 03:41 PM
It's last season, hence the Too 100 Players of 2013. It's not their careers.But, how do you know that's how the players are voting?

The entire voting process for the top-100 is flawed.

Rudyy
06-30-2013, 03:49 PM
But, how do you know that's how the players are voting?The entire voting process for the top-100 is flawed.Well I'm sure the producers ask the players based on the X season. Now, how they rank them? I don't know how they do that process. I guess that's thr flawed part. But this is based off the season they just finished playing.

Buddy333
06-30-2013, 03:51 PM
#1 Giants QB last year and the 7 years prior and for the forseeablr future. Thats all that matters. All the QBs can do whatever they want. They play the Giants defense anyway....not Eli....:cool:So true.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 03:56 PM
It might surprise you to know that some of us are tired of these stupid Eli threads, in which the same posters (you included) continue to debate the same issues over and over and over and over . . . until the thread invariably gets locked.

Enough already.

The purpose of this board and the Top 100 list to get people talking.

But go right ahead and start a thread on a different topic and see if it get's legs.

Drez
06-30-2013, 04:28 PM
Here's one of the articles I read that describe the process. I thought I read another where they actually asked a player about how he voted. I have no idea how to find that one.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/05/inside-the-top-100-voting-process/

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 04:54 PM
Here's one of the articles I read that describe the process. I thought I read another where they actually asked a player about how he voted. I have no idea how to find that one.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/05/inside-the-top-100-voting-process/

Thanks. I obviously heard erroneous info.

BeatYale
06-30-2013, 05:12 PM
The players ranked Eli 43rd, Rodgers 6th, Brady 4th, and Peyton is either 1 or 2.

That's quite a drop for our guy. I guess you can call me a homer because I thought Eli was closer too them than that.

Why would Eli deserve to be up there with those guys? Even at this point in his career, it's not unusual for Eli to have multiple bad games throughout a season. Those guys consistently play better than him, bad games are less common for them.

Eli had 5 games under 200 yards, 3 of which he wasn't even close. He went 3 consecutive games without a TD pass, the previous 2 games he had 1 TD each, so a 5 week span with 2 touchdown passes. Did you watch the Bengals game? Bone headed interceptions on back to back drives, both leading to Bengals touchdowns.

He's lucky to be ranked 43rd for the way he played last year.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 06:13 PM
Why would Eli deserve to be up there with those guys? Even at this point in his career, it's not unusual for Eli to have multiple bad games throughout a season. Those guys consistently play better than him, bad games are less common for them.

Eli had 5 games under 200 yards, 3 of which he wasn't even close. He went 3 consecutive games without a TD pass, the previous 2 games he had 1 TD each, so a 5 week span with 2 touchdown passes. Did you watch the Bengals game? Bone headed interceptions on back to back drives, both leading to Bengals touchdowns.

He's lucky to be ranked 43rd for the way he played last year.

The argument of course is the importance of winning Championships and the value that gets placed on it. We as beneficiaries think more highly of him because of the 2 Lombardi's in the last 6 years. That stands for something.

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 09:02 PM
The argument of course is the importance of winning Championships and the value that gets placed on it. We as beneficiaries think more highly of him because of the 2 Lombardi's in the last 6 years. That stands for something.

No, no no...it doesn't stand for something.

It stands for everything.

The obsession with stats, rank, one (or three) bad games...that's the true noise; all of it utterly meaningless.

The boy's our QB...he's shown (twice) that he has what it takes to win it all - end of story.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 10:03 PM
No, no no...it doesn't stand for something.

It stands for everything.

The obsession with stats, rank, one (or three) bad games...that's the true noise; all of it utterly meaningless.

The boy's our QB...he's shown (twice) that he has what it takes to win it all - end of story.


Believe me, I fully understand how meaningless this whole ranking thing is. I only brought it up in context of how we Giants fans feel vs the rest of the league. No QB has more trophies in the last 7 years than Eli, yet that obviously doesn't carry enough weight with the players who were are asked to pick the very best.

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 10:31 PM
Believe me, I fully understand how meaningless this whole ranking thing is. I only brought it up in context of how we Giants fans feel vs the rest of the league. No QB has more trophies in the last 7 years than Eli, yet that obviously doesn't carry enough weight with the players who were are asked to pick the very best.

I actually don't dispute Eli's ranking at all (or even a lower one) amongst his peers as much as I say it's meaningless.

I think that the players that voted had no agenda other than stating their opinions. And I don't dispute or challenge their opinions in the slightest.

gumby74
06-30-2013, 10:36 PM
No, no no...it doesn't stand for something.

It stands for everything.

The obsession with stats, rank, one (or three) bad games...that's the true noise; all of it utterly meaningless.

The boy's our QB...he's shown (twice) that he has what it takes to win it all - end of story.

If people truly agreed with the bold, then Eli wouldn't always suffer from "disrespect". Regardless of what you may think, clearly others think differently.

Flip Empty
06-30-2013, 10:39 PM
He's widely recognised as one of the best quarterbacks in the league, how is that disrespectful?

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 10:41 PM
If people truly agreed with the bold, then Eli wouldn't always suffer from "disrespect". Regardless of what you may think, clearly others think differently.

The fact that some people on this board feel that you personally disrespect Eli whenever you are given the opportunity does not mean that the league disrespects him.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 10:41 PM
I actually don't dispute Eli's ranking at all (or even a lower one) amongst his peers as much as I say it's meaningless.

I think that the players that voted had no agenda other than stating their opinions. And I don't dispute or challenge their opinions in the slightest.

So you agree with the disparity between those guys and Eli?

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 10:44 PM
So you agree in the disparity between those guys and Eli?

what guys?

GameTime
06-30-2013, 10:45 PM
what ever his ranking is on whatever pole he is still the starting QB for the NYG so who gives a **** where he places amongst his peers!!!!??
Rogers is still the QB for the Pack, Brady for the Pats, Brees for the Saints, etc.....
thats what really matters...... his place in the field of the NFL means absolutely squat!!!!!

gumby74
06-30-2013, 10:46 PM
The fact that some people on this board feel that you personally disrespect Eli whenever you are given the opportunity does not mean that the league disrespects him.

Like when he was left off the top 100 list? I'm not insinuating in any way shape or form that these lists actually mean anything. But fact is, that these lists only get to people who think Eli should be ranked higher. I think I speak for practically everyone when I say that most of us don't care.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 10:49 PM
what guys?

his brother, Tom, and Aaron.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 10:52 PM
what ever his ranking is on whatever pole he is still the starting QB for the NYG so who gives a **** where he places amongst his peers!!!!??
Rogers is still the QB for the Pack, Brady for the Pats, Brees for the Saints, etc.....
thats what really matters...... his place in the field of the NFL means absolutely squat!!!!!

Don't blow a gasket GT. No heated conversation going on to get all upset over.

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 10:54 PM
his brother, Tom, and Aaron.

Wanna see something that will probably surprise you (and give Gumby a seizure of some sort)?

Let's compare Eli to Brady and Brees. I will need to break the stat line in two sections if that's OK with you.

Fair?

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 10:56 PM
Wanna see something that will probably surprise you (and give Gumby a seizure of some sort)?

Let's compare Eli to Brady and Brees. I will need to break the stat line in two sections if that's OK with you.

Fair?

I'm cool with anything.

gumby74
06-30-2013, 10:58 PM
Wanna see something that will probably surprise you (and give Gumby a seizure of some sort)?

Let's compare Eli to Brady and Brees. I will need to break the stat line in two sections if that's OK with you.

Fair?

Let me guess, the stat line for the first 7 seasons for all 3? Yes, I know that they are very, very close. Almost identical.

Edit: The second part remains to be written for Eli. But where Brees and Brady took off, Eli has had an amazing 2011, and a "usual" 2012.

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 11:07 PM
OK...here we go.
COMP ATT PCT YDS
Brady 401 637 63 4,827
Brees 422 670 63 5,177
Eli 321 536 59.9 3,948

It appears that our boy is way, way in the dust in comparison.

He is not.

Brees threw 20% more than Eli and Brady threw 16 percent more.

Let's reduce each so that Brady and Brees both have the same number of attempts

Brady 337 535 63 4055
Brees 338 536 63 4142
Eli 321 536 59.9 3,948

Let's talk about this first.

Eli's "accuracy issues" comes down to a difference of 1 pass per game.

His overall yardage is in line, and his yards per attempt are in line.

With me?

And don't worry Gumby...the second half gets much worse for Eli.

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 11:09 PM
Let me guess, the stat line for the first 7 seasons for all 3? Yes, I know that they are very, very close. Almost identical.

Edit: The second part remains to be written for Eli. But where Brees and Brady took off, Eli has had an amazing 2011, and a "usual" 2012.

I know you know this: I'm not making a point about Eli as much as the thin margins separating any of the top QB's, and where the margins get thick.

I will only use stats from last year since that was the assumption we made about the player poll

gumby74
06-30-2013, 11:18 PM
I know you know this: I'm not making a point about Eli as much as the thin margins separating any of the top QB's, and where the margins get thick.

I will only use stats from last year since that was the assumption we made about the player poll I've said it many times. All the seasons starting from last year going forward will dictate how people perceive Eli. With Brees, Peyton, and Brady aging and on the decline soon, will Eli up his game and becomes one of the big dogs? Or will he let the "up and comers" take over.

I had high hopes coming into 2012 as I bought into the "Eli koolaid" somewhat. I told burier i needed to see one more season similar to 2011 to officially start thinking that he's arrived. And btw, this applied to everyone JPP, Cruz, etc. I needed to see one more year. Cruz passed. JPP not so much. Eli not so much.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 11:20 PM
OK...here we go.
COMP ATT PCT YDS
Brady 401 637 63 4,827
Brees 422 670 63 5,177
Eli 321 536 59.9 3,948

It appears that our boy is way, way in the dust in comparison.

He is not.

Brees threw 20% more than Eli and Brady threw 16 percent more.

Let's reduce each so that Brady and Brees both have the same number of attempts

Brady 337 535 63 4055
Brees 338 536 63 4142
Eli 321 536 59.9 3,948

Let's talk about this first.

Eli's "accuracy issues" comes down to a difference of 1 pass per game.

His overall yardage is in line, and his yards per attempt are in line.

With me?

And don't worry Gumby...the second half gets much worse for Eli.


What's the purpose? And where's Rodgers and Peyton? Not that I really care...

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 11:34 PM
What's the purpose? And where's Rodgers and Peyton? Not that I really care...

On this end...it would end the same.
They all are within the same range; the overall difference is number off attempts.

So this kind of hit me when I was working this weekend. If they all have similar YPA, then they should fall into the same range in the factors that make that up: attempts, completions and yards.

Not a lot of space between the guys at the top, in this half only.

You had asked what I thought about the difference between the guys ranked above Eli, and I guess I could have been shorter with it:

It is all about mistakes and TD's.

Eli makes more mistakes.
Eli throws fewer TD's

The mistakes are killers of opinions.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 11:40 PM
On his end...it would end the same.
They all are within the same range; the overall difference is number off attempts.

So this kind of hit me when I was working this weekend. If they all have similar YPA, then they should fall into the same range in the factors that make that up: attempts, completions and yards.

Not a lot of space between the guys at the top, in this half only.

So you're argument is they are statistically closer than people realize and on top of that Eli is the proven ultimate winner. So then how do we explain him being underrated by his peers?

Buddy333
06-30-2013, 11:51 PM
Brees does throw a lot more than Eli but he also threw a lt more TD's with 3 more interceptions. Brady had more TD's and only 8 intceptions.

Delicreep
06-30-2013, 11:51 PM
So you're argument is they are statistically closer than people realize and on top of that Eli is the proven ultimate winner. So then how do we explain him being underrated by his peers?

Mistakes are killers of opinions.

And let's all be honest here...he has throw some picks that defy explanation. Picks that are markedly different from his peers.
And there are more of them to boot.

That would be my guess.

Roosevelt
06-30-2013, 11:57 PM
Mistakes are killers of opinions.

And let's all be honest here...he has throw some picks that defy explanation. Picks that are markedly different from his peers.
And there are more of them to boot.

That would be my guess.

No argument from me on that.

B&RWarrior
07-01-2013, 01:01 AM
OK...here we go.
COMP ATT PCT YDS
Brady 401 637 63 4,827
Brees 422 670 63 5,177
Eli 321 536 59.9 3,948

It appears that our boy is way, way in the dust in comparison.

He is not.

Brees threw 20% more than Eli and Brady threw 16 percent more.

Let's reduce each so that Brady and Brees both have the same number of attempts

Brady 337 535 63 4055
Brees 338 536 63 4142
Eli 321 536 59.9 3,948

Let's talk about this first.

Eli's "accuracy issues" comes down to a difference of 1 pass per game.

His overall yardage is in line, and his yards per attempt are in line.

With me?

And don't worry Gumby...the second half gets much worse for Eli.

This is exactly why you can't rely on stats alone to support an argument. Eli's biggest problem is consistency. So the lesser completion percentage may average out to one pass per game, but it doesn't play out like that. The reality is he has games where he looks as good as the best and then he has games where he looks awful. AR, Brady, and Brees very rarely look awful. Plus he makes a lot of easy throws circus catches on many occasions.

giantsfan420
07-01-2013, 01:09 AM
This is exactly why you can't rely on stats alone to support an argument. Eli's biggest problem is consistency. So the lesser completion percentage may average out to one pass per game, but it doesn't play out like that. The reality is he has games where he looks as good as the best and then he has games where he looks awful. AR, Brady, and Brees very rarely look awful. Plus he makes a lot of easy throws circus catches on many occasions.i dunno, seems like he's used stats fairly to me...

giantsfan420
07-01-2013, 03:37 AM
i'd like to see the responses if we changed the parameters around a bit.

how would you guys rank the year 2011 for Eli in comparison to other QB's "years"...2011 may have very well been the highest level of QB play that carried into the postseason and ultimately SB MVP that we've ever seen. Dunno many QBs that had the 2011 Eli had...

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 07:10 AM
i'd like to see the responses if we changed the parameters around a bit.

how would you guys rank the year 2011 for Eli in comparison to other QB's "years"...2011 may have very well been the highest level of QB play that carried into the postseason and ultimately SB MVP that we've ever seen. Dunno many QBs that had the 2011 Eli had...

Aaron Rodgers did.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 08:34 AM
Well Rodgers should have been #1 so that list is meaningless.No way best football player not most important, It's gotta be Megatron the guy is unstoppable. I mean hell even our defense stopped Aaron Rodgers.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 08:38 AM
Yes I know, and just imagine after he wins his 4th!He still won't make top 5....unless he puts up monster numbers. Someone said Eli is the Rodney Dangerfield of the NFL and they were right.Did you here how they talk about him on the top 100 video. It was like pulling teeth for them to rank him that high.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 08:49 AM
No way best football player not most important, It's gotta be Megatron the guy is unstoppable. I mean hell even our defense stopped Aaron Rodgers.There are defenses that slow down Johnson too.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 08:57 AM
There are defenses that slow down Johnson too.Really, who??It's usually not one guy either, it's three. I remember that game against Dallas in 2011 and three guys could not stop him. Dude is unbelievable.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 08:59 AM
Calvin is a better athlete, harder to stop, and every bit as elite and important to his team as Aaron Rodgers.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:04 AM
He is a great WR, but not more important than the best QB in the game. Also, the stats where great last year except for TD's where he only scored 5. Don't know hey that is, but the newer rules allow for WR' to pile up catches and yards now.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:12 AM
He is a great WR, but not more important than the best QB in the game. Also, the stats where great last year except for TD's where he only scored 5. Don't know hey that is, but the newer rules allow for WR' to pile up catches and yards now.Yeah he did all year with a hurt knee and have you ever seen the defenses they come up with to stop him on the goaline?? It's insane they bracket 3 players around him so he can't go in the middle, straight up, or to the outside. Of course Stafford is going to go with the 1 on 1 coverage.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 09:15 AM
Calvin is a better athlete, harder to stop, and every bit as elite and important to his team as Aaron Rodgers.I can agree with this althought Revis did manhandle him a few years ago.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:17 AM
Yeah he did all year with a hurt knee and have you ever seen the defenses they come up with to stop him on the goaline?? It's insane they bracket 3 players around him so he can't go in the middle, straight up, or to the outside. Of course Stafford is going to go with the 1 on 1 coverage.Yeah, he is a dangerous player, but not more important than the best QB in the game and Rodgers is setting records too.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:22 AM
I can agree with this althought Revis did manhandle him a few years ago.That's the only guy I know that maybe could stop him 1 on 1. I'm not sure if he could do that again though.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:24 AM
Yeah, he is a dangerous player, but not more important than the best QB in the game and Rodgers is setting records too.I beg to differ but I guess we will agree to disagree. Aaron is the best quarterback yes but I'm talking about best football player...to me C.J. is the best. He truly lives up to his nickname.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:27 AM
Rodgers was the MVP of the league two years ago and has thrown 70+ TD's more than interceptions over the past 2 seasons. He has been every bit as dominant as Johnson if not more.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:36 AM
Rodgers was the MVP of the league two years ago and has thrown 70+ TD's more than interceptions over the past 2 seasons. He has been every bit as dominant as Johnson if not more.MVP?? Really...that's a popularity contest. And that was two years ago. I'm talking about right now. C.J. is a better football player. MVP is just most valuable to their team not best football player. Let me ask you something... A.P. won it this year, does that make him a better football player then Rodgers??

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:39 AM
No it doesn't. Now if one where building a team would they want a QB that makes the people around him better or a WR to make his QB look better?

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:40 AM
Oh, and yes, MVP may be a popularity contest but when you have one of the best seasons every by a QB its a worthy award.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:46 AM
No it doesn't. Now if one where building a team would they want a QB that makes the people around him better or a WR to make his QB look better?Dude what?? C.J. makes Stafford look a hell of a lot better then he really is. Like I said before it's the top 100 players. To me C.J. is a monster and clearly the best a what he does. There are arguments that can be made that there are better quarterbacks then Aaron Rodgers. Of course somemone is going to take a qb to start a team but your failing to realize we are talking best player.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:48 AM
Oh, and yes, MVP may be a popularity contest but when you have one of the best seasons every by a QB its a worthy award.Peyton didn't even play that year neither did A.P. two of the most popular players in the league. I'm sure if they did and put up close numbers to Aaron they would have won it. Let's face it, they are more likable guys then the ****y Aaron Rodgers.

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 09:50 AM
Dude what?? C.J. makes Stafford look a hell of a lot better then he really is. Like I said before it's the top 100 players. To me C.J. is a monster and clearly the best a what he does. There are arguments that can be made that there are better quarterbacks then Aaron Rodgers. Of course somemone is going to take a qb to start a team but your failing to realize we are talking best player.

A great QB is better than an excellent wideout. Look at Fitzgerald last year in arizona.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:50 AM
Dude what?? C.J. makes Stafford look a hell of a lot better then he really is. Like I said before it's the top 100 players. To me C.J. is a monster and clearly the best a what he does. There are arguments that can be made that there are better quarterbacks then Aaron Rodgers. Of course somemone is going to take a qb to start a team but your failing to realize we are talking best player.Um, that's the point. Rodgers makes the WR's, or anyone he throws to better. Having a QB hat can do that is much more important. No QB has been better than Rodgers the past two seasons.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:54 AM
A great QB is better than an excellent wideout. Look at Fitzgerald last year in arizona.That's only cause the quarterback has a ton more options...that doesn't mean he is the better football player. Let me ask you this who will benefit more from having who??

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:55 AM
Peyton didn't even play that year neither did A.P. two of the most popular players in the league. I'm sure if they did and put up close numbers to Aaron they would have won it. Let's face it, they are more likable guys then the ****y Aaron Rodgers.He set a record for the best QB rating ever. It may have been the greatest season by a QB ever or at least arguably. He had 45 TD's with only 6 interceptions.

BuffyBlueII
07-01-2013, 09:56 AM
I've said it many times. All the seasons starting from last year going forward will dictate how people perceive Eli. With Brees, Peyton, and Brady aging and on the decline soon, will Eli up his game and becomes one of the big dogs? Or will he let the "up and comers" take over.

I had high hopes coming into 2012 as I bought into the "Eli koolaid" somewhat. I told burier i needed to see one more season similar to 2011 to officially start thinking that he's arrived. And btw, this applied to everyone JPP, Cruz, etc. I needed to see one more year. Cruz passed. JPP not so much. Eli not so much.

Tom Brady threw for 4800 yards, 34 TDs and 8 INTS in 2012. He also led his team to the AFC Championship Game. When has he shown any sign of declining? The guy is The Best QB in NFL. I wish Eli was The Best but he isn't.

I also thought that the Eli Manning in 2011 was the Eli Manning that we would have moving forward but that didn't occur in 2012 although NY Giants all seemed to be waiting for the 2011 version to come around. Regardless, I am fine with the Eli Manning version we have.

Eli Manning arrived in 2007 when he led us to victory in SuperBowl XLII.

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 09:56 AM
A great QB is better than an excellent wideout. Look at Fitzgerald last year in arizona.There's a difference between being truly "better" and being more valuable. The example you provide shows why QBs are that valuable to teams

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:56 AM
Who will benefit more? The team with an elite QB will benefit more than the team with an elite WR.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:57 AM
Um, that's the point. Rodgers makes the WR's, or anyone he throws to better. Having a QB hat can do that is much more important. No QB has been better than Rodgers the past two seasons.again just cause he is more important doesn't mean he is a better football player. I mean really I could say Eli is more important and a better football player then C.J. cause he is more important cause he plays qb. Do you agree with that??I'm not talking stats, I'm talking about pure ability Calvin is the better player.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 09:58 AM
Who will benefit more? The team with an elite QB will benefit more than the team with an elite WR.Really so AR wouldn't benefit from having Megatron??

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 09:59 AM
Megatron is the perfect wide receiver. Have you seen how teams play him at the goalline? They put two guys on him. That's what you call changing the game.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 09:59 AM
When Eli is playing well he is more important to any team than Johnson. A QB playing at an elite level is much more important than an elite WR making his QB have good stats.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:02 AM
Who said they wouldn't be great together? An elite QB is more important than an elite WR.

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 10:03 AM
Really so AR wouldn't benefit from having Megatron??

He won a super bowl without him. What has megatron won? Last year he put up huge yardage in garbage time. Detroit were 4-12 and lost their last 8 games in a row.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:04 AM
Megatron is the perfect wide receiver. Have you seen how teams play him at the goalline? They put two guys on him. That's what you call changing the game.Thank you sometimes the bracket him with three players. From pure ability C.J. is a better football player.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:05 AM
He won a super bowl without him. What has megatron won? Last year he put up huge yardage in garbage time. Detroit were 4-12 and lost their last 8 games in a row.Garbage time man you really have no idea what your talking about. Aaron Rodgers had a great team that year. Calvin does more on his own the Aaron. Hence why he is the better football player.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:06 AM
When Eli is playing well he is more important to any team than Johnson. A QB playing at an elite level is much more important than an elite WR making his QB have good stats.once again not most important...best plllllllaaaayyyyyerrrr.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:07 AM
Buddy you never answered the question does that make Eli a better football player then C.J.??

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:07 AM
Really? Rodgers has no OL and no running game. He also had some of his main targets injured. You think a WR does more than a QB?

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 10:07 AM
He won a super bowl without him. What has megatron won? Last year he put up huge yardage in garbage time. Detroit were 4-12 and lost their last 8 games in a row.Again, that just displays positional value, not true football ability.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:08 AM
In 2011 Eli was a better player than Johnson.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:10 AM
Really? Rodgers has no OL and no running game. He also had some of his main targets injured. You think a WR does more than a QB?He's talking about the year they won the sb not last year buddy. Nice try though. No I don't think a wr does more then a qb. You just don't realize what better football player means.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:10 AM
In 2011 Eli was a better player than Johnson.1600 NFL players say your wrong...

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:11 AM
In 2011 Eli was a better player than Johnson.
Huh?
Megatron is a once in a lifetime WR.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:12 AM
Again, that just displays positional value, not true football ability.I don't know what so hard to understand about what a better football player mean....I don't think me or you are saying Rodgers isn't more important. I mean hell any quarterback could be considered important to their team. We're just talking ability.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:13 AM
He hasn't had a good OL or running game for at least 2 years now. Rodgers is the better football player. He plays the hardest position at its highest point and maybe at the highest point ever. That makes him the best football player.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:14 AM
Huh?Megatron is a once in a lifetime WR.Again, in 2011 Eli was the better football player.

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 10:16 AM
Again, that just displays positional value, not true football ability.

Their roles are completely different and so it's virtually impossible to measure true football ability between one of the best QB'S in the world and one of the best WR's. Positional value obviously plays a part because Rodgers would be more valuable to any team.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:17 AM
He hasn't had a good OL or running game for at least 2 years now. Rodgers is the better football player. He plays the hardest position at its highest point and maybe at the highest point ever. That makes him the best football player.Ok so what other wrs on the Lions are playing to help out C.J.?? I'm pretty sure they have a shot o-line to and no running game too. I can make a case for Brady or Peyton to be better at playing the position or just as good as Rodgers. You can't do that with Megatron.

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 10:18 AM
He's talking about the year they won the sb not last year buddy. Nice try though. No I don't think a wr does more then a qb. You just don't realize what better football player means.

What does better football player mean? Is David Wilson better than Peyton Manning because he's more athletic and can run a quicker 40?

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:18 AM
So lets play GM. You are building a team. Do you go with a franchise QB that is "elite" and makes all his targets look like stars or an elite WR than can put up great numbers?

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:19 AM
Their roles are completely different and so it's virtually impossible to measure true football ability between one of the best QB'S in the world and one of the best WR's. Positional value obviously plays a part because Rodgers would be more valuable to any team.If they are impossible to measure true football ability then why did you just try to do it??

Just curious...

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 10:19 AM
He hasn't had a good OL or running game for at least 2 years now. Rodgers is the better football player. He plays the hardest position at its highest point and maybe at the highest point ever. That makes him the best football player.

Rodgers also sat out for his first three seasons. Not many players these days are afforded such a length of time to learn the position. I'd also counter saying quarterback is the hardest position in the league today when the rules favor passing offenses and make it that much harder on CBs, the true toughest spot to play in.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:20 AM
Again, in 2011 Eli was the better football player.
Maybe you can back that up......
Or do you think that simply repeating the claim is sufficient.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:21 AM
Johnson is an incredible athlete and would be welcome on any team, but a QB at the level of Rodgers is simply a better player and more important to a team.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:23 AM
Maybe you can back that up......Or do you think that simply repeating the claim is sufficient.Thought repeating it was fine.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:23 AM
What does better football player mean? Is David Wilson better than Peyton Manning because he's more athletic and can run a quicker 40?To me who changes defenses(or changes offenses), who's stronger, faster, harder to stop, best at position, importance to their team and playing at an elite level. Is David Wilson playing at an elite level?? We are comparing two elite guys, you think Aaron is the better football player I'm fine with that but I think you're wrong.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:24 AM
Thought repeating it was fine.
Well I did ask.......

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:25 AM
Rodgers also sat out for his first three seasons. Not many players these days are afforded such a length of time to learn the position. I'd also counter saying quarterback is the hardest position in the league today when the rules favor passing offenses and make it that much harder on CBs, the true toughest spot to play in.Good points, but not everyone that sits to wait for their chance becomes the next best player at his position. Also, while CB is tough to play with the rules, agree completely, a QB still has to run his offense and read defenses. Still have to give the edge to the QB.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:25 AM
Maybe you can back that up......
Or do you think that simply repeating the claim is sufficient.He can't, he's just saying it to support his claim.

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 10:26 AM
Rodgers, Brady, Manning and Brees are the best 4 players in the league. After that you have guys like Megatron, JJ Watt, Revis and AP etc.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 10:27 AM
They are both elite players, and they both mean a great deal to their teams. /thread

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:27 AM
Good points, but not everyone that sits to wait for their chance becomes the next best player at his position. Also, while CB is tough to play with the rules, agree completely, a QB still has to run his offense and read defenses. Still have to give the edge to the QB.That's fine you value a football player on one thing... importance to their team. I see a better football player as more then that.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:27 AM
To me who changes defenses(or changes offenses), who's stronger, faster, harder to stop, best at position, importance to their team and playing at an elite level. Is David Wilson playing at an elite level?? We are comparing to elite guys, you think Aaron is the better football player I'm fine with that but I think you're wrong.
Hard to define who the best "football player" is, because the criteria is so illusive.
But AR is probably in the top 3.

gumby74
07-01-2013, 10:28 AM
Let's look at it another way. How about we give QBs bonus points for being able to play the hardest position (many times over) in football. That alone adds a lot of "better player" points. Being an Rodgers, Peyton, Brady, and Brees is hell of a lot harder than a CJ who can thrive on physical ability alone.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:29 AM
So why is he a better football player? Because he runs faster?

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 10:30 AM
So lets play GM. You are building a team. Do you go with a franchise QB that is "elite" and makes all his targets look like stars or an elite WR than can put up great numbers?Again, that comes down to positional value. If we were doing a redraft, I'd probably take 50+ players before Patrick Willis

GameTime
07-01-2013, 10:30 AM
The arguement can be made that the top 3 players at any of the main "skill" positions can be the "best" player in the league....

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:31 AM
Again, that comes down to positional value. If we were doing a redraft, I'd probably take 50+ players before Patrick Willis
Really?

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:31 AM
Hard to define who the best "football player" is, because the criteria is so illusive.
But AR is probably in the top 3.Oh definitely, I agree Aaron Rodgers is a top player. To me he is second. He is no scrub. To me when someone is changing the way defenses defend him that's says something. Almost kind of reminds me of LT on the offensive side of the ball.

fansince69
07-01-2013, 10:31 AM
I go on vacation for a week and I am glad to see some things never change....hope everyone had a great week

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:32 AM
So why is he a better football player? Because he runs faster?I gave you more reasons then he runs faster....

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:32 AM
Really?Didn't get that either.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:33 AM
What else then? He's taller?

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 10:33 AM
Good points, but not everyone that sits to wait for their chance becomes the next best player at his position. Also, while CB is tough to play with the rules, agree completely, a QB still has to run his offense and read defenses. Still have to give the edge to the QB.

The QB might have more things to run but there are tools in place (headset in the helmet, plays on the wrist, center helping read the defenses) that can help even the worst of QBs look better than they truly are. The only help a CB gets is from additional defenders and that leaves holes in the defense. One wrong hand on the opposing receiver and we could be talking about a huge 20+ yard penalty. It's also VERY hard to keep up with any receiver at the pro level for more than 5 seconds.

AR is a fantastic QB and probably the best one in the game right now but he does have a weakness in his game unlike Megatron and that's holding onto the ball for too long to try and make a play when he should just throw it out of bounds instead. He has been responsible for a good deal of sacks that has happened against the Packers.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:35 AM
What else then? He's taller?not explaining again you can go back and read if you want to...you think Aaron Rodgers is the better player, I don't. I leave it at that.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:38 AM
The QB might have more things to run but there are tools in place (headset in the helmet, plays on the wrist, center helping read the defenses) that can help even the worst of QBs look better than they truly are. The only help a CB gets is from additional defenders and that leaves holes in the defense. One wrong hand on the opposing receiver and we could be talking about a huge 20+ yard penalty. It's also VERY hard to keep up with any receiver at the pro level for more than 5 seconds.AR is a fantastic QB and probably the best one in the game right now but he does have a weakness in his game unlike Megatron and that's holding onto the ball for too long to try and make a play when he should just throw it out of bounds instead. He has been responsible for a good deal of sacks that has happened against the Packers.When you throw 70+ more TD's than interceptions over the past two season and for your career have the best QB rating ever a few sacks are acceptable. It's also because he has a bad OL and no running game. Speaking of pressure and sacks, that's also what makes it so hard to be a QB. You have guys twice your size looking to hit you and you may only have about 4 seconds to make a decision.

NYGabriel
07-01-2013, 10:39 AM
Rodgers takes sacks to keep his QB rating sky high.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:40 AM
When you throw 70+ more TD's than interceptions over the past two season and for your career have the best QB rating ever a few sacks are acceptable. It's also because he has a bad OL and no running game. Speaking of pressure and sacks, that's also what makes it so hard to be a QB. You have guys twice your size looking to hit you and you may only have about 4 seconds to make a decision.
500 LB linemen?

Egads!!!!!!!

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 10:41 AM
Rodgers takes sacks to keep his QB rating sky high.
He takes sacks because he knows that a sack is better than a pick.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:43 AM
500 LB linemen?Egads!!!!!!!Yeah and 12 feet tall!

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 10:45 AM
When you throw 70+ more TD's than interceptions over the past two season and for your career have the best QB rating ever a few sacks are acceptable. It's also because he has a bad OL and no running game. Speaking of pressure and sacks, that's also what makes it so hard to be a QB. You have guys twice your size looking to hit you and you may only have about 4 seconds to make a decision.

The point I'm making is that you can identify a weakness in Rodgers while the same can't be said about Megatron. The latter has a full route tree, separation skills, height, can highpoint most passes, etc. You also have to remember that the QB has 20+ seconds before most snaps to read a defense and get appropriate protection against the pass rush. There are tools in place to counter everything a defense throws at you.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:47 AM
When you throw 70+ more TD's than interceptions over the past two season and for your career have the best QB rating ever a few sacks are acceptable. It's also because he has a bad OL and no running game. Speaking of pressure and sacks, that's also what makes it so hard to be a QB. You have guys twice your size looking to hit you and you may only have about 4 seconds to make a decision.Kinda like the situation in Detroit also, no run game, no o-line and I would think a qb taking a sack effects the wide receiver too.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:50 AM
The point I'm making is that you can identify a weakness in Rodgers while the same can't be said about Megatron. The latter has a full route tree, separation skills, height, can highpoint most passes, etc. You also have to remember that the QB has 20+ seconds before most snaps to read a defense and get appropriate protection against the pass rush. There are tools in place to counter everything a defense throws at you.So you think QB is easier than playing WR? He can't block for himself you know.

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 10:50 AM
Really?About 25 qbs, 15 pass rushers, few 3techs, 10 corners, 10 left tackles, 7 wrs, couple running backs.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:50 AM
How does taking a sack effect the WR? Takes away his stats?

gumby74
07-01-2013, 10:52 AM
The point I'm making is that you can identify a weakness in Rodgers while the same can't be said about Megatron. The latter has a full route tree, separation skills, height, can highpoint most passes, etc. You also have to remember that the QB has 20+ seconds before most snaps to read a defense and get appropriate protection against the pass rush. There are tools in place to counter everything a defense throws at you.

You can see Rodgers has more weaknesses because there's more to a QBs game than a WR. Being a WR is many times easier than being a QB in this league. A QB has many more variables to worry about. More stuff can go wrong. While CJ is an once in a life time talent, in terms of pure difficulty being Aaron Rodgers is much more difficult.

gumby74
07-01-2013, 10:52 AM
Delete

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 10:54 AM
So you think QB is easier than playing WR? He can't block for himself you know.

Depends on the scheme. More often than not, I'd give the nod to the QB but in a system like the Texans for example, a good amount of that offense relies on Andre Johnson stretching the field so the running lanes can open for Foster and the rest of the receivers. QB is one of the top positions in difficulty but it just doesn't touch CB in my mind.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:55 AM
How does taking a sack effect the WR? Takes away his stats?Wow really?? How... maybe if the qb could get rid of that ball maybe he scores a touchdown for the quarterback that's how. Or maybe it's a 5yard sack and now instead or running a 5 yard route he now has to run a 15 or 10 yard route. Or maybe just maybe instead of blocking for a running back for 2 yards he is now dependant on to get those yards the qb lost.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:55 AM
Depends on the scheme. More often than not, I'd give the nod to the QB but in a system like the Texans for example, a good amount of that offense relies on Andre Johnson stretching the field so the running lanes can open for Foster and the rest of the receivers. QB is one of the top positions in difficulty but it just doesn't touch CB in my mind.So if the rules make it that hard for a CB because they can't touch the WR doesn't that mean the WR has it easier in today's game?

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 10:57 AM
Lol. The guy has thrown 70+ TD's more than interceptions the past 2 seasons and if he takes a sack because of poor OL play and no running game he hurt his WR's?

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:58 AM
I think a lot of people are forgetting every player on offense has to know all the plays just like the quarterback. Also that most wrs have to see what the quarterback sees and are facing contact on every possession.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 10:59 AM
So if the rules make it that hard for a CB because they can't touch the WR doesn't that mean the WR has it easier in today's game?

When did I say that WR is harder to play than QB? I simply stated that one player (Rodgers) has a weakness while the other (Johnson) doesn't. You can't find it on the tape if you go look. Both positions benefit from the pass happy rules in place and CB (and S to a lesser extent) suffer as a result. I'm not sure some of you realize the athletic demands and decision making that is placed on CBs.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 10:59 AM
Lol. The guy has thrown 70+ TD's more than interceptions the past 2 seasons and if he takes a sack because of poor OL play and no running game he hurt his WR's?Not just wrs the whole offense. Are you saying it doesn't??

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:02 AM
When did I say that WR is harder to play than QB? I simply stated that one player (Rodgers) has a weakness while the other (Johnson) doesn't. You can't find it on the tape if you go look. Both positions benefit from the pass happy rules in place and CB (and S to a lesser extent) suffer as a result. I'm not sure some of you realize the athletic demands and decision making that is placed on CBs.Right, so Johnson has no weakness because the rules favor his position. Rodgers still has to go against 11 defenders while Johnson does not.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:03 AM
If Rodgers takes sacks then his team needs to work on better blocking. He is NOT their problem.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 11:03 AM
When did I say that WR is harder to play than QB? I simply stated that one player (Rodgers) has a weakness while the other (Johnson) doesn't. You can't find it on the tape if you go look. Both positions benefit from the pass happy rules in place and CB (and S to a lesser extent) suffer as a result. I'm not sure some of you realize the athletic demands and decision making that is placed on CBs.
"Taking sacks" is not a weakness at all.
Its a decision he has to make with a bad O line and no running game for the benefit of the team. He also extends plays with his mobility which also tends to lead to more sacks. But the benefit of this ability is tremendous.
I am not aware of any weakness in Aaron Rodgers' game at all.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 11:06 AM
Right, so Johnson has no weakness because the rules favor his position. Rodgers still has to go against 11 defenders while Johnson does not.

Rodgers also has guys in place to protect him from the pass rush. You do know that defenders can go after Megatron once he catches a pass, right? I'd rather be the QB any day of the week in terms of taking punishment from the defense.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 11:07 AM
Right, so Johnson has no weakness because the rules favor his position. Rodgers still has to go against 11 defenders while Johnson does not.The rules favor Rodgers too you make it sound like doesn't. That he is a one man band. I don't think Green Bay is as bad as you think they are.They have Finley, they had Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Cobbs, and Jones. It also part of their scheme why they don't run the ball well.It's cause mainly their coach just simply likes to throw and is impatient with the running game.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 11:08 AM
"Taking sacks" is not a weakness at all.
Its a decision he has to make with a bad O line and no running game for the benefit of the team. He also extends plays with his mobility which also tends to lead to more sacks. But the benefit of this ability is tremendous.
I am not aware of any weakness in Aaron Rodgers' game at all.

When he has the option to throw it out of bounds instead of taking negative yardage, yes it is a weakness. This is part of his decision making that he needs to improve upon and become more consistent at. Otherwise, he's the best QB in the league as of this date. Not all sacks are the fault of the offensive line.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 11:09 AM
"Taking sacks" is not a weakness at all.
Its a decision he has to make with a bad O line and no running game for the benefit of the team. He also extends plays with his mobility which also tends to lead to more sacks. But the benefit of this ability is tremendous.
I am not aware of any weakness in Aaron Rodgers' game at all.Taking sacks is definitely a weakness. no one goes into a football game looking to lose yards. He can get rid of the ball sometimes without taking a sack or throwing an int.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:10 AM
Rodgers also has guys in place to protect him from the pass rush. You do know that defenders can go after Megatron once he catches a pass, right? I'd rather be the QB any day of the week in terms of taking punishment from the defense.Um, that's the point. His OL is not very good. Defenders can go after Rodgers the second he gets the ball. If we are talking about taking punishment form the defense RB has the toughest job followed by a QB that has a bad OL.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:11 AM
Haven't seen all his games but have seen Rodgers take many sacks where he has had NO time at all to do anything. His OL is not good and they are no threat to run he ball.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 11:14 AM
Um, that's the point. His OL is not very good. Defenders can go after Rodgers the second he gets the ball. If we are talking about taking punishment form the defense RB has the toughest job followed by a QB that has a bad OL.

So because he doesn't have a good OL (and don't act like they are all scrubs, Josh Sitton is one of the best Guards in the game today), he is absolved of all mistakes? You don't think it's possible that the Packers OL would have a better reputation if he got rid of the ball better when under pressure?

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:19 AM
So because he doesn't have a good OL (and don't act like they are all scrubs, Josh Sitton is one of the best Guards in the game today), he is absolved of all mistakes? You don't think it's possible that the Packers OL would have a better reputation if he got rid of the ball better when under pressure?You mean better than having the best all time QB ranking? Or better than throwing 70+ more TD's than interceptions the past 2 seasons? Lol. So maybe he should learn how to block for himself. Said it before, haven't seen all his games but have seen him take sacks where the play was blown up form the snap.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 11:22 AM
Taking sacks is definitely a weakness. no one goes into a football game looking to lose yards. He can get rid of the ball sometimes without taking a sack or throwing an int.
So in February 2011, when Tom Coughlin said at the combine that Eli needed to take more sacks,,,, he didn't know anything about football?

And Eli ended up taking 12 more sacks in 2011 than in 2010. Which was a better season?

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 11:24 AM
Taking sacks kills drives, of course they are a negative. Just watch Rodgers get sacked 8 times vs. Seattle. At least half he could've thrown away. But being stat conscious QB, he made his O line look worse than they really were.

Moke
07-01-2013, 11:24 AM
This is based off LAST YEARS performance ONLY, and heading into the 2013 season. This is not "Top 100 players so far in their careers."

I feel like there is a thread on Eli Manning ranking almost every day, meanwhile nobody can grasp this concept at all.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 11:24 AM
You mean better than having the best all time QB ranking? Or better than throwing 70+ more TD's than interceptions the past 2 seasons? Lol. So maybe he should learn how to block for himself.

Watch the Packers Oline pass protection vs. the Giants. Even though one is "pegged" with allowing more sacks, they consistently give Rodgers more time to throw the ball and a cleaner pocket to step up in. They aren't a top Oline or even average but the media would rather blame them every time instead of possibly saying Rodgers messed up once in awhile. We realize the argument here is that I'm saying Rodgers messes up once in a blue moon and that some here act and talk from a viewpoint that Rodgers is flawless on every snap?

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:25 AM
You mean the game they should have won had it not been for the fill in refs? Ok.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 11:26 AM
Taking a sack could be a good thing and a bad thing. You don't want to risk throwing a pick and turning it over. At the same time, you're going backwards and not moving the ball, and you now have to make up for the lost yardage.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 11:27 AM
Taking a sack could be a good thing and a bad thing. You don't want to risk throwing a pick and turning it over. At the same time, you're going backwards and not moving the ball, and you now have to make up for the lost yardage.No, taking a sack is never a good thing because you lose a down and yardage.

Eliscruzzz
07-01-2013, 11:29 AM
So in February 2011, when Tom Coughlin said at the combine that Eli needed to take more sacks,,,, he didn't know anything about football?

And Eli ended up taking 12 more sacks in 2011 than in 2010. Which was a better season?That cause Ei will just throw it anywhere he pleases. He doesn't have the mobility that Rodgers does to throw the ball out of bounds. I'm sure he was referring to immediate pressure.

Buddy333
07-01-2013, 11:29 AM
Watch the Packers Oline pass protection vs. the Giants. Even though one is "pegged" with allowing more sacks, they consistently give Rodgers more time to throw the ball and a cleaner pocket to step up in. They aren't a top Oline or even average but the media would rather blame them every time instead of possibly saying Rodgers messed up once in awhile. We realize the argument here is that I'm saying Rodgers messes up once in a blue moon and that some here act and talk from a viewpoint that Rodgers is flawless on every snap?No player is perfect, but he is playing the hardest position at its highest level. The CB position is very tough but still give the nod to QB.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 11:30 AM
Taking sacks kills drives, of course they are a negative. Just watch Rodgers get sacked 8 times vs. Seattle. At least half he could've thrown away. But being stat conscious QB, he made his O line look worse than they really were.
What evidence do you have that Rodgers (or for that matter any QB) is "stat conscious".

I'm sure you can back that up.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 11:31 AM
No, taking a sack is never a good thing because you lose a down and yardage.

It's better than a potential turnover though. Incompletion > Sack > Turnover. There are times when Rodgers could have done #1 instead of #2 (lolol) and helped his defense with better field position overall. That's all I'm saying and it's not a common mistake he makes. Just the only one that stands out as a weakness.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 11:31 AM
No, taking a sack is never a good thing because you lose a down and yardage.
As I said, Tom Coughlin disagrees.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 11:31 AM
No, taking a sack is never a good thing because you lose a down and yardage.In certain situations it could be, I would rather a sack than throwing a pick.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 11:33 AM
No player is perfect, but he is playing the hardest position at its highest level. The CB position is very tough but still give the nod to QB.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I have CB at 1 and QB at 2. It's very close to me but it's just hard to give QB the nod over CB.

Delicreep
07-01-2013, 11:45 AM
As I said, Tom Coughlin disagrees.

It's never always black or white, but obviously taking the sack on occasion, and living to fight another day, can have a very high upside.

You can make the case for delay of game penalties to make sense, a sack should be a no brainer.

DO NO HARM.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 11:47 AM
In certain situations it could be, I would rather a sack than throwing a pick.I'd rather throw a pick than a pick 6 therefore throwing a pick can be a good thing right?

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 11:48 AM
I'd rather throw a pick than a pick 6 therefore throwing a pick can be a good thing right?Aren't we talking sacks vs. picks here and not picks v pick 6's?

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 11:50 AM
I'd rather throw a pick than a pick 6 therefore throwing a pick can be a good thing right?Possibilities are unlimited. Any scenario can be better than something randomly conjured up. It's just a matter of having common sense and knowing where to draw the line. Some people are more capable of this quality than others.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 11:52 AM
Possibilities are unlimited. Any scenario can be better than something randomly conjured up. It's just a matter of having common sense and knowing where to draw the line. Some people are more capable of this quality than others.Bottom line, taking a sack is never a GOOD thing

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 11:54 AM
Bottom line, taking a sack is never a GOOD thingMaybe it's not "good" perse, but it's a better option than throwing a pick. I guess better option is the term to use.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 11:55 AM
Bottom line, taking a sack is never a GOOD thing
That's nonsense.
Its a better option than a reckless throw into coverage. Its better than a pick. Your comment doesn't show a lot of football knowledge....I'm sorry.

Taking a sack is often the best option a QB has when he's under pressure. You have to deal with the situation at hand.

And THAT is why TC wanted Eli to be willing to take more sacks in 2011. Which he did. And how did that work out?

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 11:55 AM
Bottom line, taking a sack is never a GOOD thingWhich is easily contradicted by Tom Coughlin's admission that Eli needs to take more sacks.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 12:02 PM
Maybe it's not "good" perse, but it's a better option than throwing a pick. I guess better option is the term to use.Then that's relative speaking, which wasn't where I was going.

A sack is better than a pick, but that doesn't make a sack a good thing lol.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 12:04 PM
Then that's relative speaking, which wasn't where I was talking about.Then what are you talking about?

gumby74
07-01-2013, 12:04 PM
That's nonsense.
Its a better option than a reckless throw into coverage. Its better than a pick. Your comment doesn't show a lot of football knowledge....I'm sorry.

Taking a sack is often the best option a QB has when he's under pressure. You have to deal with the situation at hand.

And THAT is why TC wanted Eli to be willing to take more sacks in 2011. Which he did. And how did that work out?

To be fair, he's a casual Giants fan. Not nut cases like us.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 12:06 PM
That's nonsense.
Its a better option than a reckless throw into coverage. Its better than a pick. Your comment doesn't show a lot of football knowledge....I'm sorry.

Taking a sack is often the best option a QB has when he's under pressure. You have to deal with the situation at hand.

And THAT is why TC wanted Eli to be willing to take more sacks in 2011. Which he did. And how did that work out?I can always count on you to miss the point.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:07 PM
Then that's relative speaking, which wasn't where I was talking about.
Everything relates to everything else.
Consult your Einstein.
A TD pass is better than a completed pass. A completed pass for a 1st down is better than a completed pass short of the first down. A completed pass short of a first down is better than an incomplete pass. An incomplete pass is better than a sack. A sack is better than a pick. A pick is better than a pick for a TD.

When the option is to take a sack or throw it into coverage with a high possibility of an Int.....which is the better option in you mind?

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 12:08 PM
I get it . Taking a sack can't be deemed "good." Its just less bad. The eli guy is right on this notion.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 12:08 PM
Would you rather throw a pick or take a sack?

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:08 PM
I can always count on you to miss the point.
I'm still waiting for you evidence that Rodgers is "stats conscious".

Didn't think you had any.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:10 PM
I get it . Taking a sack can't be deemed "good." Its just less bad. The eli guy is right on this notion.
If Eli had taken a sack in the Philly playoff game instead of throwing a stupid pass into the hands of Asante Samuel, and we went on to win the game... that sack would have been "good" indeed.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 12:15 PM
Would you rather throw a pick or take a sack?Of course take the sack,

Now is going from 2nd a 7 to 3rd and 13 a good thing?

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 12:15 PM
I get it . Taking a sack can't be deemed "good." Its just less bad. The eli guy is right on this notion.Wasn't that difficult was it?

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:16 PM
Of course take the sack,

Now is going from 2nd a 7 to 3rd and 13 a good thing?
Would you rather have 3rd and 13 or the other team with the ball?

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 12:16 PM
Of course take the sack, Now is going from 2nd a 7 to 3rd and 13 a good thing?No it's not good, but atleast you still have the ball to try and convert, than the other team having the ball.

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 12:16 PM
If Eli had taken a sack in the Philly playoff game instead of throwing a stupid pass into the hands of Asante Samuel, and we went on to win the game... that sack would have been "good" indeed.No. It wouldn't have been. Its just statistically less worse than throwing a pick. If I were to say that eli was going to get sacked on any given play before the play were to occur, then there's is simply no justifiable way to quantify a sack as a good play.

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 12:17 PM
No it's not good, but atleast you still have the ball to try and convert, than the other team having the ball.Right, exactly, it is NOT good. That is what is trying to be conveyed.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 12:17 PM
No it's not good.Thanks for playing.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:20 PM
Right, exactly, it is NOT good. That is what is trying to be conveyed.
If taking a sack vs. throwing a pick means the difference between winning and losing a game, taking a sack is "very good".

Again...its all relative.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 12:22 PM
Thanks for playing.I already told you this one page back, Lol. I said it was the better option of the two. And you already agreed with me a pick would be worse than taking a sack. Thanks for playing.

Rudyy
07-01-2013, 12:22 PM
Right, exactly, it is NOT good. That is what is trying to be conveyed.I already explained that it's not "good" but the lesser of two evils. Do you disagree?

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:23 PM
Put it this way, if taking a sack is a way to manage the game by not creating turnovers, then its not a weakness.
Given the productivity of the GB offense without a decent O line or running game, then it is clear that the willingness to take sacks is not only not a weakness on the part of Rodgers, but an asset.

Imgrate
07-01-2013, 12:26 PM
If taking a sack vs. throwing a pick means the difference between winning and losing a game, taking a sack is "very good".Again...its all relative.And this is your fundamental misunderstanding. Before a play starts there are an infinite # of possibilities: td, fumble, int, few yards gained, first down, sack, etc.A sack is not considered a good outcome of any play because a number of other options were at one point possible. Even in your supposed scenario of sack vs. Int there are other possiblities. For example, maybe eli could have broken a couple tackles and gained yardage, intentional grounding, maybe it wasn't just a sack, rather a strip sack.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:31 PM
And this is your fundamental misunderstanding. Before a play starts there are an infinite # of possibilities: td, fumble, int, few yards gained, first down, sack, etc.A sack is not considered a good outcome of any play because a number of other options were at one point possible. Even in your supposed scenario of sack vs. Int there are other possiblities. For example, maybe eli could have broken a couple tackles and gained yardage, intentional grounding, maybe it wasn't just a sack, rather a strip sack.
Again...its relative.
When the standard is what is acceptable before the play starts, then yes, a sack isn't good.
When the standard is what is best at the moment of decision, then a sack can be a good thing.
When a QB is about to be sacked and has no option but to throw it up for grabs or take a sack, which option is good. To me its the sack.

But to get to the core of this argument, "taking sacks" in the case of Aaron Rodgers is NOT a weakness in his game. Its reflects his understanding that turnovers are killers in a football game, and sacks are far better options than turnovers.
That is NOT a weakness in his game. Its a strength. As evidenced by TC's statement that he wanted our QB to do exactly that.

EliDaMANning
07-01-2013, 12:32 PM
Put it this way, if taking a sack is a way to manage the game by not creating turnovers, then its not a weakness.
Given the productivity of the GB offense without a decent O line or running game, then it is clear that the willingness to take sacks is not only not a weakness on the part of Rodgers, but an asset.How do you know Rodgers couldn't have hit his RB for a TD pass but instead took the sack?

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:37 PM
How do you know Rodgers couldn't have hit his RB for a TD pass but instead took the sack?
Then why wouldn't he do that? The kid is mega productive and doesn't turn it over. I think its working well for him.
If you're saying that he is over cautious and takes too many sacks, which hurts his productivity, then we wouldn't see the kind of tremendous productivity out of him.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that he should take more risks with the ball since his productivity is hurt by it. And then say he's "stats conscious" since he takes too many sacks. When by definition he would throw for more yards and TD's.
He has tremendous productivity, which flies in the face of your argument.

GameTime
07-01-2013, 12:47 PM
what a bunch of nuts.....:cool:

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:48 PM
what a bunch of nuts.....:cool:
Why?
Because we're talking about football on a football MB?

Crazy Man!!!

GameTime
07-01-2013, 12:51 PM
Why?
Because we're talking about football on a football MB?

Crazy Man!!!
no because some of you cant understand a simple explainantion and take it for what its worth...

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:55 PM
no because some of you cant understand a simple explainantion and take it for what its worth...
Like what?
Do you think taking sacks is a weakness in AR's game?

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 12:57 PM
Like what?
Do you think taking sacks is a weakness in AR's game?

When he could have thrown it out of bounds instead, it is definitely a mistake by Rodgers. As pointed out earlier by EliDaMANing, the Seattle game is a good example.

GameTime
07-01-2013, 12:59 PM
Like what?
Do you think taking sacks is a weakness in AR's game?

No I dont. In Cutlers game..yes I do. In Ben's game yes I do.
A sack is never good but it can and is the lesser of some other worse things that can happen.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 12:59 PM
When he could have thrown it out of bounds instead, it is definitely a mistake by Rodgers. As pointed out earlier by EliDaMANing, the Seattle game is a good example.
Sometimes its not possible. But throwing it away is better than taking a sack.
The problem is that throwing it away can often draw a grounding penalty which is worse than a sack.

And if you look at Rodgers productivity and his lack of turnovers, its hard to make the argument that he hasn't struck the right balance.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 01:00 PM
No I dont. In Cutlers game..yes I do. In Ben's game yes I do.
A sack is never good but it can and is the lesser of some other worse things that can happen.

See how easy it is to get sucked into an argument?

Hahaha!!!!

GameTime
07-01-2013, 01:02 PM
See how easy it is to get sucked into an argument?

Hahaha!!!!
I knew what you were doing and I expected the response you just gave. The nutty part was some of you not being able to figure out that a sack is never a good thing. The arguements are fine but the lack of simple comprehension of a post is nutty at times.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 01:04 PM
Sometimes its not possible. But throwing it away is better than taking a sack.
The problem is that throwing it away can often draw a grounding penalty which is worse than a sack.

And if you look at Rodgers productivity and his lack of turnovers, its hard to make the argument that he hasn't struck the right balance.

So you don't think Rodgers, a naturally mobile QB, makes the occasional mistake of trying to make a play happen when it is evident from the tape he could have just thrown it away and avoided the negative play? All I'm trying to say here is that his one weakness is not knowing when the defense wins and when to accept that instead of taking a sack. It happens a few times and it's not a big enough problem to keep him from being highly productive.

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 01:05 PM
I knew what you were doing and I expected the response you just gave. The nutty part was some of you not being able to figure out that a sack is never a good thing. The arguements are fine but the lack of simple comprehension of a post is nutty at times.
When there are worse options, sometimes a sack is a good thing.

Let me ask you, if a QB gets hit and the ball is rolling on the ground, wouldn't you think that at that point, a sack would be a "great" thing?

Morehead State
07-01-2013, 01:07 PM
So you don't think Rodgers, a naturally mobile QB, makes the occasional mistake of trying to make a play happen when it is evident from the tape he could have just thrown it away and avoided the negative play? All I'm trying to say here is that his one weakness is not knowing when the defense wins and when to accept that instead of taking a sack. It happens a few times and it's not a big enough problem to keep him from being highly productive.
If you look at his rushing amounts compared to his sack yards lost, they are about equal. So his mobility and willingness to try to extend plays, which risks sacks is a great asset.
Most QB's are negative more than 200 yards in that category.

Now, does EVERY decision in that regard turn out to be right? Of course not. But on average, he has clearly struck the right balance.

GameTime
07-01-2013, 01:09 PM
When there are worse options, sometimes a sack is a good thing.

Let me ask you, if a QB gets hit and the ball is rolling on the ground, wouldn't you think that at that point, a sack would be a "great" thing?

whatever Bro......a negative play is never good but even though there are worse scenarios it may make the sack a better option but its still a negative play.

TheEnigma
07-01-2013, 01:14 PM
If you look at his rushing amounts compared to his sack yards lost, they are about equal. So his mobility and willingness to try to extend plays, which risks sacks is a great asset.
Most QB's are negative more than 200 yards in that category.

Now, does EVERY decision in that regard turn out to be right? Of course not. But on average, he has clearly struck the right balance.

Well don't forget that sacks result in lost PASSING yards and not rushing yards in the NFL. You can't really look at the rushing amounts earned by Aaron Rodgers to judge his decision making when it comes to taking an incomplete pass vs. a sack.

GameTime
07-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Well don't forget that sacks result in lost PASSING yards and not rushing yards in the NFL. You can't really look at the rushing amounts earned by Aaron Rodgers to judge his decision making when it comes to taking an incomplete pass vs. a sack.

really?....I didnt know that. I just figured the were counted as negative rushing yards. Seems to make more sense.
So a QB loses passing yards without an attempt?? Doesnt seem right to me....